On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 11:18:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 19:38:11 -0600, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 09:17:27 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/3/2020 11:52 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 20:57:48 -0800 (PST), Mark
wrote:

On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 10:06:46 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:
OT

What would have happened in the impeachment if there were a tie vote?

The vote for witnesses was 49 to 51. One more vote for witnesses would
have been a tie.

Normally the president of the Senate, often the Vice-President, breaks
ties, but Justice Roberts is supposed to be neutral. Would he still
break the tie? Or would a tie vote lose.

They were talking about that on the news and it comes down to a tie
is a not guilty A majority wound be needed for a guilty No tie
breaker needed.

One reason there should always be an odd number of votes - - -

Wouldn't help. US Constitution requires 2/3-rds super majority (67) to
convict to impeach the President.

It's been a non-starter from the git-go; just an utter waste of time and
money instigated for purely political motives.

Correct. Impeachment is a political process, spelled out in the
Constitution. It is not a criminal process. The only possible outcomes are
conviction & removal from office, or acquittal and no removal.

The first part, the impeachment, is done. Trump has been impeached. He's
the third President in the country's history to wear that badge. He would
have been the 4th, but Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment.

As for acquittal being a foregone conclusion, that was always expected. It
will be very surprising if there is a conviction, but what should the House
have done? Do nothing and condone the shyster behavior of this President?
What kind of bad example would that set? No, they pretty much had to act
when they did. You can nitpick the process, but they had to do it. With
Trump looking for election help (again!) from a foreign country, it's risky
to just let the election take care of it.

It was an over reaction by people who have still not accepted the
results of the 2016 election and I see it as a horrible precedent. We
went four score and 11 years without impeaching a president, then
another century went by and in the last half century, one was forced
from office and 2 were impeached. It is a disturbing trend. I fear
whenever the House majority gets ****ed at a president in the future
they will impeach him.

Then maybe presidents should straighten up and fly right? That's
the solution, not accepting abuse of office, because we want to
keep impeachments below some number. I suppose if there were too
many murders, the solution would be to ignore those above a certain
number?